Are All Markets Liars?

Last week, Ray Edwards posted an interesting assertion about truth in marketing -- I'm trying to decide whether to find it disturbing:

Myths are stories that teach us something about our best selves, that inspire us to reach for something better, or that caution us against grave error.

...

Marketing, in its pure and noble form, uses mythology; it never uses lies.

The part about never using lies, I agree with wholeheartedly, of course. But what is the place of myth in marketing?

Is it okay to use "truthy" stories, photos, etc. that aren't literally true to illustrate a point and inspire a purchase? Or is that deceptive?

Is it okay, as long as you point out that the story is made up? Should you point that out before the story, or is after okay? If you do it after, you may have already planted the seeds of believing something that's not actually true. Can that misunderstanding truly be "fixed" after the fact?

I'm not going to name names, but I saw a sales pitch recently that contained a bold, yellow-highlighted statement similar to this:

Push-button System Makes $7,500 a Week on Complete Autopilot!

A few paragraphs later, they made it clear that the bold, highlighted assertion was an example of the kind of lies others were using to sell similar products.

Here's the problem: someone skimming the sales letter would have thought that was a claim they were making about their product. Perhaps that's what this sales letter was going for -- using a lie to sell a product, with "fine print" to cover their booties.

Of course, there's a difference between an outright lie and a myth that illustrates true principles or realistic possibilities.

But here's my question: why would you tell a non-factual story to illustrate real possibilities instead of using a factual story?

Is that okay for a new product, where you're confident the results are possible, but you don't yet have proof? Is it okay if you point out that the story is fictional? Using a story, rather than a description of what you believe is possible would likely be more persuasive. But do you have to earn the right to persuade by getting real evidence first?

Reader Comment:

Rick Hendershot said:

Just two of the many wonderful opportunities I received today:
1. From John Chow promoting "free training" from Kevin Wilkie:
Exactly What Would I Do To
Create A 5-Figure Income
Within 30 To 90 Days!
2. From someone called Alvin...

(join the conversation below)

I'd argue that to be completely ethical, any non-factual story that would tend to persuade a prospect to buy should be presented in a way that makes it clear from the outset that it's fictional.

That could be done by stating up front that it's a fable, an analogy, etc. Or it could be done using obviously fictional elements in the story like leprechauns or aliens. It's even possible to do simply by using language that's commonly used in fictional stories: "once upon a time..."

I'd also argue that there's little justification for using realistic but non-factual stories to paint the picture of a product's results. Realism in marketing should be reserved for reality.

7 Responses:

a) The first type seeks to hustle as many units as possible, by any means available to any agent with purchasing potential - and is less interested in whether the product is actually a 'good fit' for the purchaser or not;

b) The second type seeks to create as many high quality win-win matches between product-units and purchasing agents as possible and is far more interested in the 'quality of fit' between unit and agent than simply in the raw quantity of units sold;

To my mind the first approach is short-termist, unenlightened and although it gives a higher amount of sales over the short term, will result in a lower amount over the long term. The second approach represents long-term, enlightened thinking and yields precisely the opposite result - far more sales over the long term as a result of fewer, better-matching sales in the short-term.

Those who favour near-instant results, sudden spikes in sales etc. will always be attracted to the first approach without taking into account that they will likely end up rushing around, breathlessly hustling from one year to the next, always having to push the next "thing" just to ride another sales-rush.

Others, more patient, will focus on match-quality between product and prospect, ignoring the slow-growth in sales early on, quietly confident that, over time, the sales curve will establish a reliable momentum, requiring little attention or maintainance by the sales-curve's architect.

In my experience most web marketers are way past wondering if truth matters in advertising/marketing. They are wrestling with the much more pressing question: "How can I get someone to buy my widget?" and from the hundreds of examples I've seen most could care less about truth or deception. Deception is commonplace (as I'm sure you know) and, it seems, almost taken for granted. Of course there are exceptions, but relatively few. Internet marketing is not what I would call an "honorable" profession, generally speaking, and any of us involved in it share the stigma created by the hucksters who dominate the field.

Reading your comment, for a moment I thought, "boy, what a dumb post I've just written -- so far separated from reality that it's probably useless!" But you're right, the honest internet marketer may be rare, but he's not entirely mythical :-).

I didn't mean to suggest your post was dumb, and like you, I don't take the "truth" question lightly. But just as with negative political advertising (that also suffers from the "truth" problem), the sad fact is that it "works". That is, it gets people fired up and willing to "buy" (at least until the passion subsides).

Successful marketers know they have to play on these emotions - they willingly admit it, and gloat about it, as though successfully manipulating people by playing on their emotions is something to be proud about. But I believe there is an element of deception involved in manipulation, an element that marketers, advertisers, salespeople, etc. conveniently ignore.

The ethics of these situations is very complex. The easiest cases are when out and out deception is involved. I tend to think there is a "hierarchy of deception" involved here. Simplistic marketers just out and out lie because they either don't know any better or they think it works. More sophisticated marketers manipulate people by using much more subtle methods. I suspect in all cases there are some standards of truth that can be applied, basically, "Am I telling the truth?" "Am I misleading people?", etc. Sophisticated marketing techniques intentionally try to blur the line between truth and deception...which makes them much harder to nail down.

Tell a Canadian three vivid stories about Chinese people eating cats and chances are he will believe that most Chinese people eat cats. Show him facts and figures to the contrary and he will still believe it. Why?

Because he can't see those facts and figures as anything real in his mind's eye. But he can see those people eating those cats.

Like I said, if you don't tell people IN ADVANCE the story is fictional, you're cheating.

Share Your Comments:

TriggerNote is an Interaction Engine for your website.
Use pre-configured "Recipes" to create exit hover ads, exit interstitial ads, etc.
Or mix and match your own combinations of over 20 Triggers and Actions to make your website respond to visitor actions,
grabbing attention, and customizing on the fly to speak to each unique visitor.

Get to Know Us

Hi.
I'm Antone Roundy.
I'm a strong believer in ethics, and have always tried to practice and promote ethical behavior in an industry where many slip over to the dark side.
At White Hat Crew, I'll share insights into internet marketing, with extra emphasis on ethical issues.